Suggested Resource: "The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism" by Fred A. Malone.
We’ve taken a look at a Baptistic understanding of the covenants of Scripture and how they inform our approach to baptism (see it here). In light of our baptisms this past week it seemed like a good time to revisit the subject and offer more reflections with some greater detail on some of the pertinent points. We can’t cover it all here and there will be more posts on this subject in the future.
In this post we will take a quick look at:
1) The meaning of the word “baptism” and how it informs our understanding of the practice.
2) The subjects of baptism in light of our understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant in contrast to the approach taken to it by those who practice infant baptism.
3) Why this is an important discussion in the first place.
The word “baptize” is a Greek word that was transliterated rather than translated and which was subsequently adopted into the English language. The root word baptō means “to dip” or “dipinto dye.” Baptizō is an intensive form of baptō and means “to dip” or “to immerse.” We find the word used in ancient writings to describe the washing of vessels by immersing them in water, the dying of fabric by dipping or immersing it in dye, and even to describe the sinking of ships.
When we look at the passages that describe baptism in the Scriptures, it is clear that immersion is what was practiced:
· The word baptizō in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament to describe Naaman’s cleansing in 2 Kings 5:14: “14 So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.”
· Jesus was in the river when he was baptized: Matthew 3:16 “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him.”
· Reflecting on Mark 1:9 (“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan”), theologian D.A. Carson pointed out this simple fact: “You can dip someone in the water but you cannot sprinkle them into the water unless you have used a mincer beforehand!”
· John the Baptist, often baptized in the Jordan River and chose places where water “was plentiful”: John 3:23 “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized.”
· Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water in order for the eunuch to be baptized: Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
· The imagery of being “buried in baptism” makes most sense if one is “buried” under the water: Col 2:12 “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (see also Romans6:4).
The evidence is so compelling that it led even those identified with groups that practice sprinkling to admit that immersion is the proper mode:
· Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest, theologian and philosopher stated (Summa III, lxvi, 7): “The symbol of Christ’s burial is more expressively represented by immersion, and for that reason this mode of baptizing is more common and more commendable.”
· Martin Luther wrote: “For this reason I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates. Not because I deem this necessary, but because it would be well to give to a thing so perfect and complete a sign that is also complete and perfect. And this is doubtless the way in which it was instituted by Christ. The sinner does not so much need to be washed as he needs to die, in order to be wholly renewed and made another creature, and to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with whom he dies and rises again through baptism.”
· John Calvin wrote of baptism in his Institutes noting: “the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.”
· John Wesley, in reporting of a baptism noted: “Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized, according to the custom of the first church and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion.”
Were there exceptions? Certainly, but they were just that: exceptions.
“The Didache” meaning “Teaching” is an anonymous Christian manual written possibly around 70 AD but most certainly before 300 AD. The full title of the work is “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” While it is not inspired, it provides us with a description of how baptisms were practiced during this time. It states: “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water (meaning, running water). If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Of note is the fact that the preferred method is for one to be baptized in running water (i.e., such as a river) and it is only after lacking that option, that someone might have water poured on their heads.
That said, a study of the Scriptures will find that the Greek words rantizō “to sprinkle” and eccheō, “to pour,” can be found in the New Testament but they are never used to describe baptism.
Everyone (those who practice infant baptism- “paedobaptism,”and those who practice believer’s baptism- “credobaptism”) agrees that those who have never been baptized, upon their coming to saving faith in Christ, should be baptized upon their confession of faith. There difference in opinion arises, however, when it comes to the treatment of the children of believing parents. Paedobaptists believe that the children ought to be baptized while credobaptists do not.
One of the main issues that divides us is that paedobaptists transfer the promises given to Abraham and his seed in the Abrahamic Covenant to believers and their seed in the New Covenant. They do this because they believe that the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are two expressions of the same Covenant of Grace. Presbyterian theologian Louis Berkhof explains of the Abrahamic Covenant: “This covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the ‘new covenant’ of the present dispensation” (Systematic Theology,633).
Their argument seems to carry weight when we read texts like:
· “Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:7-9).
· “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).
· “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring-not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all” (Romans 4:13-16).
If we are Abraham’s children, should we not all receive the sign of being a child of Abraham- in the OT it was the circumcision of infant males, in the NT, the paedobaptist argues, it should be the baptism of all infants.
Before we get to discussing how Baptists understand our relationship as “the seed of Abraham,” let’s point to a couple of issues the paedobaptist argument brings up:
· Why don’t we continue to practice circumcision?
· Why don’t we only baptize males?
· Those who were circumcised in Genesis 17 included not only Abraham’s sons, but “all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner” (vs. 27). This begs the question, why don’t we baptize the housekeepers of believers?
· And how about the land promises that were a part of the Abrahamic covenant? Should we not claim Canaan as the rightful territory of all believers?
· The Abrahamic covenant had stipulations: “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (vs. 14). Does this imply baptismal regeneration or that baptism is required to be saved?
With that said, in what way can it be said that we ARE Abraham’s children?
First, we believe that the Abrahamic promises were fulfilled in Christ: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
Members of the New Covenant, are then Christ’s elect offspring: “when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring” (Isaiah53:10); “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us- for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’- so that in Christ the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14); “In Christ you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:26-29).
So, we argue that the seed promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ and through Christ to the elect offspring who are in union with Him by faith. It is in this way that “Abraham is the father of us all.” It is through faith in Christ that we are united to Abraham- not by birth. Notice what drives the argument of Romans 4:9-16:
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
It is clear that those who have Abraham as their father are those who have “the righteousness that he had by faith” and are those “who believe” (vs. 11), who “walk in the footsteps of faith” (vs. 12), are heirs due to faith (vs. 13), who “share the faith of Abraham” (vs. 16).
Once we see that membership in the New Covenant is based upon an individual’s faith rather than via birth (i.e., the “new birth” or “being born again” rather than being “born unto Christian parents”), it is clear that this is what was spoken of by the prophets all along. Jeremiah 31:29-24 reads:
29 In those days they shall no longer say: “‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.’ 30 But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Notice that, with the New Covenant, God would no longer bring curses upon people for the sins of their fathers. Now, each would give account for their own sins.
Also notice that members of the New Covenant are those who1) have the law written on their mind and hearts, 2) they have God as their God and He has them as His own, 3) they will all know God, 4) they will be those who are forgiven and whose sins God will no longer remember.
Compare these characteristics to what the NT says about believers: “If you love me (Jesus), you will keep My commandments” (John14:15); “I (Paul) delight in the law of God, in my inner being” (Romans 7:22); “No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27); “I (Jesus) am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me” (John 10:14); «Y esta es la vida eterna: que te conozcan a ti, el único Dios verdadero, y a Jesucristo, a quien has enviado» (Juan 17:3); (Citando a Jeremías 31) «'No recordaré más sus pecados y sus iniquidades. ' Cuando se les perdona, ya no se ofrece ninguna ofrenda por el pecado. Por lo tanto, hermanos, ya que tenemos la confianza de entrar en los lugares santos por la sangre de Jesús, por el camino nuevo y vivo que él nos abrió a través de la cortina, es decir, a través de su carne... retengamos sin vacilar la confesión de nuestra esperanza» (Hebreos 10:17-20, 23).
Ezequiel 36:24-27 habla del Nuevo Pacto en términos de que cada miembro tiene un corazón nuevo:
«24 Los tomaré de entre las naciones, los reuniré de todos los países y los llevaré a su propia tierra. 25 Los rociaré con agua limpia y quedarán limpios de todas sus impurezas, y los limpiaré de todos sus ídolos. 26 Y les daré un corazón nuevo y un espíritu nuevo que pondré dentro de ustedes. Quitaré de vuestra carne el corazón de piedra y os daré un corazón de carne. 27 Pondré mi Espíritu dentro de vosotros y haré que sigáis mis estatutos y guardéis mis ordenanzas».
Todo esto apunta al hecho de que para ser miembro del Nuevo Pacto uno debe tener fe. Esto descarta a los bebés. Y si los bebés no pueden ser miembros del Nuevo Pacto, ¿por qué darles la señal del Nuevo Pacto?
Hay mucho más que decir y, sin duda, continuaremos con esta conversación, pero, por ahora, terminemos preguntando: «¿Realmente importa?»
Para algunos, esto parece mucho alboroto por algo que, en última instancia, no importa. ¿Por qué debería el cuerpo de Cristo dividirse en denominaciones a causa de esto?
Un par de razones:
1) El principio regulador. Citando de una publicación anterior :
El principio regulador de la adoración establece que la adoración corporativa de Dios debe basarse en instrucciones específicas de las Escrituras. Como el Segunda Confesión Bautista de Londres de 1689 dice: «La forma aceptable de adorar al Dios verdadero la instituyó él mismo y su propia voluntad revelada la limita tanto que no se le puede adorar según la imaginación y los artimañas de los hombres, ni según las sugerencias de Satanás, bajo ninguna representación visible ni de ninguna otra forma que no esté prescrita en las Sagradas Escrituras» (22.1). Esto explica por qué los bautistas calvinistas se separaron de sus hermanos presbiterianos. Debido a que la Biblia no ordena el bautismo de bebés, los primeros bautistas creían que el bautismo de bebés estaba prohibido en el culto público, y que solo el bautismo de los creyentes debía practicarse en la adoración. Este principio regulador de la adoración limita los elementos del culto público a la Palabra predicada y leída, las ordenanzas del bautismo y la Cena del Señor, la oración, el canto de salmos, himnos y canciones espirituales, y cualquier otra cosa que ordenen las Escrituras.
Los teólogos presbiterianos (Warfield, Berkhof, Murray) han admitido que no hay un mandamiento positivo para el bautismo de bebés en las Escrituras, pero su práctica proviene de una «buena y necesaria inferencia» de la circuncisión de los bebés en el Antiguo Testamento. Los bautistas argumentan que están cometiendo un error al encontrar una inferencia de algo cuando la enseñanza clara lo contradice. Los bautistas sostienen que somos nosotros los que podemos decir que nos apegamos al principio regulativo en lugar de tratar de evitarlo.
2) Una de las características básicas de una iglesia bautista es la de una «membresía eclesiástica regenerada». Esto simplemente significa que la membresía de una iglesia local está compuesta solo por aquellos que han nacido de nuevo. Por lo tanto, los hijos de los miembros no se consideran miembros formales de la asamblea local hasta que profesen su fe. ¿Por qué es importante? Por un lado, nuestras iglesias son iglesias congregacionales, lo que significa que, si bien la iglesia está dirigida por ancianos, la última autoridad terrenal es la congregación misma (ver más aquí ). Siendo ese el caso, la única manera de proteger a la iglesia es garantizar que aquellos a quienes se les confía la autoridad congregacional sean aquellos que realmente son seguidores de Cristo. También significa mucho en lo que respecta al testimonio de la iglesia ante un mundo que nos observa. Si los miembros de la iglesia están compuestos por creyentes y no creyentes, entonces la iglesia será acusada legítimamente de muchos actos caprichosos. Por último, lleva a los miembros a creer que son cristianos simplemente porque son miembros de la iglesia cuando, de hecho, no lo son. Por lo tanto, su participación en la Cena del Señor es una farsa, una profanación de la mesa y una amenaza para su propio bienestar (véase 1 Corintios 11:27-31). Esto, al final, perjudica la salud de la iglesia. Un ministro llamado John Tombes, que escribió sobre este tema en 1659, pregunta acerca del bautismo infantil: «¿Hay algo malo en ello?» Responde: «El bautismo infantil tiende en gran medida a endurecer la presunción de las personas, como si hubieran sido cristianas antes de conocer a Cristo, y obstaculiza en gran medida la reforma de las iglesias cristianas, al llenarlas de miembros ignorantes y escandalosos, además del gran pecado de profanar la ordenanza de Dios».
3) En pocas palabras, deseamos promover la enseñanza clara de las Escrituras para la edificación de la iglesia. Decir que simplemente no importa es concluir que las Escrituras no son claras sobre el tema y que no se comprometen en sí mismas. Sin embargo, como hemos visto anteriormente y en nuestro post anterior, las diferencias entre los dos puntos de vista son bastante sustantivas e implican puntos de vista muy divergentes sobre algunos pasajes clave de las Escrituras, que son todo menos vagos y evasivos. La cuestión no es si las Escrituras presentan este tema como importante o no, ¡sino cómo entendemos lo que dicen que debemos tomarnos en serio! Hay iglesias que tratan de ir por un camino intermedio al permitir que las familias de su iglesia elijan el método bautismal que prefieran. La única conclusión a la que se puede llegar es que esas iglesias simplemente no entienden que esto no es simplemente una cuestión de preferencia y es de naturaleza superficial, sino que va al meollo de lo que creemos acerca de lo que significa ser miembro del Nuevo Pacto y las implicaciones de eso para el individuo y para la iglesia.
